Aural Perception
Published: 1995 Author: Stuart Button
THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE is to evaluate the importance of, and draw the reader’s attention to, the need for a systematic approach to teaching pitch by class and instrumental teachers to children. The first part of the article considers the contributions made to English music education by the nineteenth-century educators G.L. Bocquillon Wilhem, John Hullah and John Curwen; and shows how their methods of teaching pitch created far more opportunity for children to develop their aural perception than is currently available. The second part of the article reviews recent research, and illustrates how ‘tone deafness’ is not the incurable problem the name suggests. It also considers, in relation to pitch, the non-musical effects that can be derived from following a musical programme such as that by Zoltan Kodály.
One of the most serious weaknesses in the present teaching of singing is the vast number of children who emerge from the formal education system with little or no recognition of pitch. These children, invariably labelled as ‘growlers’ or ‘groaners’, grow up believing that they cannot sing, and are, therefore, regarded as being unmusical. Poor pitch singing is a deep rooted problem, an obdurate difficulty which, it was hoped, would be resolved with the introduction of Music in the National Curriculum (1992) but, in this document there is no attempt to raise the standard of aural awareness beyond the recommendations in its predecessor, Music 5 to 16 (1985). Moreover, the introduction of a revised edition of Music in the National Curriculum has also failed to confront this problem. Neither has there been any attempt to integrate aural training with music literacy.
Pitch training is essential for the development of general musicianship, and without it children never learn to sing in tune correctly; instrumentalists do not develop good intonation, and if children are going to unfold as composers then the cultivation of the inner ear is essential. Aural training is the ‘central core of musicianship and it is this experience that should govern the work of teachers at all times’.[1] To ignore pitch training is to produce an incomplete musician. It is therefore, the responsibility of all music teachers to provide for their pupils a systematic approach to cultivating aural awareness. One starting point would be to consider the work of nineteenth-century music educators.
In 1839, a new Committee for the Council of Education was formed, and Dr James Kay Shuttleworth was appointed Secretary. Kay Shuttleworth toured Europe observing the different approaches to teaching music, and became convinced that continental teaching methods of singing should be introduced into English schools. While in Paris, Kay Shuttleworth saw in operation G.L. Bocquillon Wilhem’s method of teaching singing, and in particular his approach to pitch development. Wilhem’s system was based on the French ‘Fixed Solfa’ method, employing the syllables doh, re, me, fa, sol, la, se and doh, which restricted children in book one to singing all exercises in C major. In addition, children were taught to beat time while singing, and shown how to use the ‘Musical Hand’ – a device in which the five fingers represent the five lines upon which music is written. The right hand denoted the treble stave and the left the bass.[2]
Kay Shuttleworth was so impressed with Wilhem’s method that he persuaded the British Government to introduce it into all elementary schools. Rainbow argues that ‘this choice of continental model was justified by its conformity to Kay Shuttleworth’s ideal in teaching method – the arrangement of the facts presented to the mind of the child in such order that each new truth may naturally succeed, and be supported by those which have preceded it’.[3]
Kay Shuttleworth invited John Hullah to translate the Wilhem method into English. Hullah accepted and retained most of Wilhem’s principal features, including the Musical Hand and the French Fixed Solfa. Initially, the method was very successful, but it soon became clear that the Fixed Solfa only afforded the opportunity to sing in C major, and all pupils except the most musically able found it impossible to progress to other keys. Hullah’s method did demonstrate, however, that large numbers of children could be taught not only to sing in tune, but to develop their aural awareness to a high standard. It was for this reason that the method was sustained in schools by considerable Government financial support, until it was eventually replaced by the work of John Curwen.
Curwen adopted an eclectic approach, drawing upon ideas from the writings of Sarah Glover, Wilhem–Hullah, Joseph Mainzer and Ferdinand Pelzer. His ‘Tonic Solfa’ system, which employs the syllables doh, re, me, fa, sol, la, te, doh, illustrates how the relationship between each note remains the same irrespective of the starting note. These syllables are linked to hand-signs which express pitch relationship, and by using these signs children soon come to realise, for example, that me is higher than doh and so is lower than te. Therefore, unlike the Fixed Solfa method, Curwen’s approach allowed children to sing in different keys, and opened up new possibilities. Pupils were able to sing in two, three and four parts, their music literacy improved, and they developed a more acute sense of pitch.
Unfortunately, Curwen’s method declined in popularity through its misuse by so-called supporters of the system. But nevertheless, it is true to say that Curwen’s and the Wilhem–Hullah method created far more opportunity for children in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to cultivate their aural perception than is available at the present time The current attempt to revive interest in Curwen’s Tonic Solfa method is evidence of this.[4]
Modern research, particularly that by Emlyn Roberts, Ann Davies and Irving Hurwitz, supports the historical view of the importance of a graded approach to the teaching of pitch, and argues that an important prerequisite is to change the attitude of teachers and parents. Parents fail to see the importance of music and believe that musical ability is inherited. Consequently, they do not question a school’s music curriculum, accepting that if musical ability does exist it will reveal itself in time. Sinich Suzuki, however, is convinced that this is not the case:
I firmly believe that cultural and musical aptitude does not come from within and is not inherited, but occurs through suitable environmental conditions. It is only a question of sensitivity and adaptive speed. Therefore to be born with excellent and superior qualities only means to be born with an ability to adapt more speedily to one’s environment.[5]
If then musical ability is not inherited it becomes the responsibility of both parents and teachers to develop a child’s ability to imitate and adapt to his environment. David Evans demonstrates how this can be done, by commenting of the rhythmic ability and confidence of West Indian and African children:
No one denies the great rhythmic ability and confidence of most West Indians and Africans, but it is nothing to do with the colour of their skin. It comes from being brought up from birth with adults who love and value rhythmic activity – dancing, clapping, singing – and who do these things spontaneously, frequently and without embarrassment…West Indians and Africans brought up to the British pattern show no more rhythmic ability than any other children.[6]
This same concept can also be applied to the teaching of pitch. Roberts & Davies have shown that pitch perception varies between peoples: ‘Tone deafness is unknown among people such as the Vietnamese, whose language is substantially pitch dependent. However, in all languages pitch fluctuates continually during the voice segments of speech and the melodic pattems so formed are a distinctive characteristic of each language.’[7]
There are two important points here. Firstly, if tone deafness is unknown amongst peoples whose language is pitch-dependent, then this would suggest that tone-deafness is not the incurable condition that the name suggests. Secondly, this research also implies that there is an important link between pitch and language.
Generally speaking there are two types of tone-deafness: first, in those who can sing a melody in tune with themselves, but cannot match the pitch of others, and second, in those who cannot do either. Many teachers would aver that nothing can be done for these types of tone-deafness, but by ignoring the problem the disability is only perpetuated. Roberts & Davies, however, have shown that this is not the case, and that something can be done for the tone-deaf. They devised a method for extending the vocal range of ‘monotone’ children and concluded: ‘There was a significant extension of vocal range for all the monotone groups over the eight weeks of the study, but this extension was greater for the children who had been exposed to the pitch training drills. The same is true for interval production. The remedial group improved significantly more than the other two groups. To this extent the remedial training may be deemed a success.’[8] They also noted: ‘Whilst singing may come “naturally” to some children, the present studies show that for monotones, singing lessons are not enough.’[9]
The important relationship between pitch and language must not be underestimated. Audrey Wisby believes that any listening experience is vital in building auditory memory, but by itself this is not enough. Sounds have to be experienced before the acute hearing of childhood is lost: ‘In the first few years children appear to be able to hear and so learn the exact pitch and tonal qualities of each sound…this ability very quickly begins to fade and as early as six years of age the hearing for the highest pitched sounds becomes insufficient for first learning.’[10] Wisbey also sees music as a means of providing the vital auditory experiences needed before the child begins to read. She claims that too much emphasis is placed upon the usual pre-reading skills, while auditory development is overlooked. That the auditory skills are in fact lacking is shown by the tendency of non-readers to have difficulty singing in tune.
This argument, therefore, supports the need for a systematic approach to the teaching of pitch such as that found in the Zoltan Kodály music programme. Kodály (1882–1967) utilised the system of Tonic Solfa and made use of the spatial hand signs as developed by Curwen. Furthermore, Kodály employed the pentatonic scale – a device consisting of five notes (doh, ray, me, so and la) taken from a normal scale, but with the semitones omitted. Klara Kokas observed that in Hungary, where the Kodály method originated, ‘school teachers have frequently noted that normal school children receiving daily Kodály instruction perform better in reading and arithmetic and have better study habits than children who receive less intensive music education’.[11]
In their research paper, Non Musical Effects of the Kodály Music Curriculum in Primary Grade Children, Irving Hurwitz, Peter Wolff, Barrie Bortnick and Klara Kokas considered the effects of the Kodály music programme along with specific aspects such as pitch and musical notation on academic performance, particularly reading. Their empirical research showed:
A programme of musical instruction involving a systematic presentation of rhythmic elements as well as those of pitch and tone was found to improve the performance of normal children on a wide range of psychological test scores. Furthermore, the method appeared related to the acceleration of reading skills insofar as conventional teaching test scores were higher for children who, in the first grade had received a special introduction.[12]
This paper also considered the effects of the Kodály programme on children with learning difficulties: the results were ‘striking’ – Kodály-trained children turned out to be much better readers.
A music programme like Kodály’s cannot be a panacea for all learning difficulties, but all music teachers should take note of the benefits to be derived. They should also consider the overwhelming support in favour of a carefully graded approach to the teaching of pitch, particularly instrumental teachers who in recent years, have regarded aural training as an appendage to musical literacy:
Children who learn instruments in school are usually taught in a way that assumes the reading of notation is a sine qua non of playing. If they do not read already then they start doing so straight away. Indeed this is often made a condition of starting to learn. Almost all the instrumental activity thereafter, in lessons, rehearsals, concerts, and examinations consists in reading while playing.[13]
This is not to suggest, however, that sight playing is not a useful aid to musicians. Indeed, there are strong arguments in its favour, but it is a view that can be challenged: ‘Naming notes and recognising signs are ancillary skills for a player, not essential to performance nor to understanding.’[14] In addition, too much reliance on developing notation is to ignore self-discovery methods and restricts pupils’ playing to what they are able to read at any given time – insisting on reading results in some children’s progress being retarded, while others become discouraged and give up. Furthermore, a move away from a dependence on notation encourages ‘auditory feeling and avoids a mechanical approach to sight reading’.[15]
Some effort has been made in recent years for instrumentalists to develop their aural awareness by taking graded tests set by music colleges. These aural tests are a kind of drill separated from all other aspects of children’s musical education; tests which are unrelated to the pupil’s instrumental playing and always linked to the piano.[16] It is not surprising, therefore, that pupils have found these examinations inadequate, threatening, demoralising and irrelevant to their musical studies.
Pitch training, therefore, should not be seen as an isolated experience, and must afford pupils an aural understanding of printed notation, create opportunities for composition and invention, allow children to give a musical performance and enable them to recall the sound of a piece in their head before they begin to perform it. Aural teaching, like that of Kodály or the recently published Growing with Music Project[17] affords these opportunities. Both these schemes and others like them are concerned with relevance so that ‘performers, composers and active listeners can actually use them in their daily musical lives’.[18]
*
- P. Priest, ‘Playing by Ear: Its Nature and Application to Instrument Learning’, in British Journal of Music Education, vol 6 nº 2 (1989), p 177. [back]
- B. Rainbow, Land Without Music (1967), p 101. [back]
- Ibid. p 167. [back]
- The Curwen Institute is always pleased to assist interested teachers. Address: The Secretary, The Curwen Institute, 17 Primrose Avenue, Chadwell Heath, Romford, Essex, RM6 4QB. [back]
- S. Suzuki, Nurtured by Love (1969), p 24. [back]
- D. Evans, Sharing Sounds (1978), p 9. [back]
- E. Roberts & A. Davies, ‘A Method of Extending the Vocal Range of “Monotone” School Children’, in Psychology of Music, vol. 4 no. 1 (1976), p 29. [back]
- Ibid. p 40. [back]
- Ibid. p 42. [back]
- A. Wisbey, Learn to Sing and Read (1980), p 5. [back]
- I. Hurwitz et al., ‘Non-musical Effects of the Kodály Music Programme in Primary Grade Children’, in Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol. 8 no. 30 (1969), p 45. [back]
- Ibid. p 50. [back]
- Priest, ‘Playing by Ear’, p 173. [back]
- Ibid. p 175. [back]
- P. Priest, ‘Putting Listening First: A Case of Priorities’, in British Journal of Music Education, vol. 10 no. 2 (1993), p 105. [back]
- Ibid. p 105. [back]
- There are several suitable methods to aid teachers in addition to those by Curwen and Kodály. The most recent, The Somerset Education Programme: Growing with Music by Michael Stocks and Andrew Maddocks is also a serious attempt to confront this problem of pitch. It is an eclectic approach, drawing on the work and writings of Curwen, Kodály and Bernarr Rainbow, and the folk song collections of Percy Grainger and Ralph Vaughan Williams. It is a programme which aims to improve general musicianship by developing aural awareness and the inner ear. It is methodologically confident and based on Curwen’s Tonic Solfa, employing the same syllables and hand signs. [back]
- G. Pratt & M. Henson, ‘Aural Teaching in the First Year of Tertiary Education: An Outline for a Course’, in British Journal of Music Education, vol. 4 no. 2 (1987), p 115. [back]